On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 12:34:20 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Craig Weinberg 
> <whats...@gmail.com<javascript:>
> > wrote:
>>  > The man who thinks he is logical is often just stubborn.
> If being ruled by your head rather than your gut or your crotch is 
> stubborn then being stubborn is a virtue.

I prefer to rule all three to the extent that I can, but also to be open to 
what all three have to offer.

> > There are many things related to consciousness  [...]
> it's not just consciousness, there are many things related 
> to EVERYTHING and if one wishes to fit all those parts of the jigsaw puzzle 
> that is the universe together into a self consistent whole then logic is 
> the only tool available; maybe it will turn out that logic is insufficient 
> for that task but its all we've got and so we'll just have to do the best 
> we can.  

It's not all we've got at all. We've got intuition, sensitivity, 
aesthetics, experience, practical or common sense... logic is very limited. 
We have a whole other hemisphere of the brain that is used, not just by us, 
but other animals as well. Logic is useless without the other faculties of 
reasoning and evaluating.

>> > The logical man is a man whose religion is logic.
> Wow, calling a guy know for disliking religion religious, never heard that 
> one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.

That's because the man restricted to logic often sees his own sentimental 
attachments and confirmation bias as part of an objective truth, and all 
that conflicts with that is painted as religious. The irony needs to be 
pointed out again and again that this is in fact the very psychology which 
he objects to in religion.

>> > Not that I'm opposed to logic
> Your posts tell a very different story. If it already supported what they 
> wanted to believe nobody, absolutely nobody, would dispute the logical fact 
> that if X is not not Y then X is Y. 

X and Y are figures. They are imaginary. They have the qualities that you 
assign to them. We can just as easily define X and Y as a superposition of 
superposition and anti-superposition and you wouldn't bat an eye if it came 
from some theoretical physicist that managed to get a peer reviewed paper 
published. Your logic is prejudice.

> If it already supported what they wanted to believe nobody, absolutely 
> nobody, would dispute the logical fact that if changing X always changes Y 
> and changing Y always changes X then X and Y are intimately related. 

Intimate relation is not causality. The stock market has been famously been 
related to skirt lengths and other spandrel-type indicators. 

> But if what you want to be true and what you logically know must be true 
> come into conflict then logic is just going to have to go away and you are 
> left with the pleasant but imbecilic idea that if you want something to be 
> true hard enough you can make it be true.   

Wanting something to be true has nothing to do with it. It's a matter of 
recognizing that logic is only one epistemological source - there are 
others, each with their own strengths and weaknesses.

>  >>> The materialist is sure that history has been simply and solely a 
>>>> chain of causation…"
>>> >> I don't know when Chesterton wrote that but he lived until 1936 and 
>>> by 1925 physicists, the ultimate materialists, did not believe that history 
>>> or anything else was "simply and solely a chain of causation"; however it 
>>> is unlikely that Chesterton ever knew this and like most self styled 
>>> philosophers remained blissfully ignorant of all scientific and 
>>> mathematical discoveries made during the last century or two.  
>> > Are you referring here to the addition of randomness or probability to 
>> the chain of causation? 
> No I am not. I'm referring to Quantum Mechanics, the TITANIC revolution in 
> science that happened in the mid 1920's. In particular I'm referring to the 
> discovery of the Schrodinger Wave equation and Heisenberg's equivalent 
> matrix formulation. On reflection I shouldn't be surprised at your 
> confusion, after all I just said that modern philosophers pay no attention 
> to recent developments in science or mathematics; and by "recent" I mean 
> stuff that happened in the last 200 years.

Not to interrupt yet another irrelevant display of ad-hominem vanity, but 
what specifically does QM add to the chain of causation which does not fall 
under the category of randomness or probability? Smaller link in the chain? 
So what?

> > Even anti-Semites can have valid insights.
> Yes but it does call into question ones claim to be a expert on morality, 
> and morality is what G K Chesterton most liked to write about.

It has been said that people often teach what they most need to learn.


>   John K Clark

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to